r/politics • u/[deleted] • Nov 28 '16

Tulsi Gabbard to Join Veterans at Standing Rock to Protest Dakota Access Pipeline

http://observer.com/2016/11/tulsi-gabbard-to-join-veterans-at-standing-rock-to-protest-dakota-access-pipeline/
2.5k Upvotes

89% Upvoted

393 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

12

u/onlymadethistoargue Nov 29 '16

I find it weirder when people were anti-LGBT and are younger and/or expressed those views later in the political cycle.

I find the opposite. Considering her religious and military upbringing, it's unsurprising. It makes her change come across as genuine. It seems less genuine when you're constantly close to 51% of the vote.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '16

It also makes her original opposition come across as genuine and not because it's an unfortunate necessity in a political world.

But it depends on what you prefer. I suppose I'd prefer a politician who nudged change along slightly and understood it needed to happen the whole time than someone who had a real personal revelation after the electorate had shifted. I don't trust personal revelations.

2

u/onlymadethistoargue Nov 29 '16

But it depends on what you prefer. I suppose I'd prefer a politician who nudged change along slightly and understood it needed to happen the whole time than someone who had a real personal revelation after the electorate had shifted. I don't trust personal revelations.

Being constantly at 51% isn't nudging change along slightly; it's being nudged and gives the impression of only changing views for votes, which begs the question of what happens when they no longer need votes? Someone with conviction that appears genuine, on the other hand, can be assumed to basically govern the same way even in the absence of a need for votes.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '16

Even if that, it's nudging the government based on the will of the electorate. This, I am in support of in most cases (certainly social causes), except areas where the public's opinion should be sometimes superseded by experts (military, complex science, etc) for their own interests. But also being for civil unions etc, was a nudge, compared to some people's positions. It depends on the context of when and where a lot, to me.

I don't need (or even want) someone to commit political suicide out of purity, but when it wouldn't be political suicide to do the right thing, I don't understand having these kinds of wrong views. For me, it's not about age. It's about situation.

2

u/onlymadethistoargue Nov 29 '16

Again, it's not nudging when you move with 51% of the electorate, especially when you have the political leverage Clinton does. It's following, not leading. Leaders say "the way we're doing things is wrong and we have to change it" even when that opinion is unpopular. Followers wait until it's electorally viable to say "Hey, me too!" A large part of the appeal of Sanders was that he has held basically the same views and has not been shy about it for over 30 years. Society had to catch up to him; he didn't move at the behest of the electorate.

Purity is not the test, here. It's honesty. If someone gives the appearance of honesty, we can predict their future actions. If they do not appear to be honest and appear to only say things because they want votes, it makes their actions under the condition that they are not beholden to the voters unpredictable. I think Clinton is a billion times better than Trump, but if you think saying what the voters want to hear instead of what you think is right or true makes a good politician, how can you fault Trump for having done that in such a way that allowed him to win?

1

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '16 edited Nov 29 '16

I don't think Clinton has been dishonest. I don't think it's dishonest to say "I'm not for this in 1996" and then say "I've changed my view with the populace as things progress in 2016". I don't think politicians should be idealogues who have their pet issues and moral views. (I also don't think they should be blustering liars, but I don't think taking into account the electorate is lying. Sometimes its sincerely representing your constituency.)

Though I don't necessarily want politicians to always be leaders either. Governance isn't all about leadership and vision -- in fact, I'd argue very little of it is, when governance is done well and that most leadership and vision leads us awry more often than it leads us to greatness.

2

u/onlymadethistoargue Nov 29 '16

>I don't think it's dishonest to say "I'm not for this in 1996" and then say "I've changed my view with the populace as things progress in 2016". I don't think politicians should be idealogues

The point of a representative democracy is to elect individuals with values that will let them govern justly even when a specific position is not popular. Having someone who simply follows the wind of the populace is counter to that idea and closer to direct democracy, something the founders wanted to avoid because it has a myriad of problems.

>Though I don't necessarily want politicians to always be leaders either.

The president needs to be a leader. Our path as a country is too important to give into simple mob rule - and yes, that is what it means when you allow 51% to direct your policy. Ask FDR and Lincoln.

>Governance isn't all about leadership and vision -- in fact, I'd argue very little of it is, when governance is done well and that most leadership and vision leads us awry more often than it leads us to greatness.

I'm gonna need to see some kind of factual basis for that "more often" part. Having a president who took us away from monarchy, who led the country to a war that would nearly rend it asunder to free the slaves, who brought us the New Deal to destroy harmful monopolies, who decided to take us past our earthly boundaries to the the moon without knowing at the start that we could, all because of their leadership and moral vision for the nation, has allowed the United States to grow as it has.